Today We Have More Hope

Like you, I have been looking forward to this election for a long time. It offered the chance for our country to turn a new face to the world – to return to our fundamental values and restore U.S. credibility and global leadership on human rights.

The promises of change on the campaign trail are now challenges President-elect Obama will face, head-on, come January. He and his administration must turn those promises into action. And it won’t be easy. Human Rights First has already been in touch with President-elect Obama’s transition team to share our strategies for how his administration can move forward on the most pressing human rights issues. We will be there for the long haul, with our shoulder to the wheel, until the job is done.



For more than a year Human Rights First has been working to ensure that the next President commits to putting U.S. human rights policy back on a track. So on November 5th, we were ready to lay out a comprehensive strategy with specific steps necessary to restore U.S. human rights leadership in the world. We have issued two blueprints for the new administration to chart a return to the rule of law, How to Close Guantanamo and How to End Torture and Other Cruel Treatment. These are the first in a planned series, which will also take on issues such as ending impunity for private security contractors and protecting Iraqi refugees. We will also provide strategic direction on a broader range of key human rights issues, including stopping the flow of arms to Sudan, stemming the tide of discrimination and hate crime, and supporting human rights advocates in places such as Russia, Egypt, Columbia, and China.

None of these are partisan issues. Human Rights First has always worked across party lines and we will continue to do so, building support for common sense proposals in the interest of all Americans. I hope we can continue to depend on your support to make the changes that we all would like to see, here and throughout the world.

Together, we can make a difference.

Pushing the Frontiers of Activism: A New Generation of Human Rights Defenders

In 1989, when Chinese students faced down tanks in Tiananmen Square, the availability of a powerful new technology – the fax machine – enabled them to get word to the rest of the world about the crackdown that took the lives of hundreds of democracy activists.

Today, the next generation of activists has a plethora of new technological tools – Flickr, YouTube, blogs – to deploy in the struggle to advance human rights.

At our annual Human Rights Awards Dinner next week, HRF will honor two of these activists – Russian Oleg Kozlovsky, and Egyptian Nora Younis. Kozlovsky and Younis are using the power of new technologies to shine a spotlight on abuses in their own countries and mobilize others to act.

By blogging and posting photos, Younis has documented – in a real and immediate way – human rights abuses in Egypt, calling on both the Egyptian and international community to act. Kozlovsky saw the power of the Internet for grassroots organizing in a country where the television and print media are heavily monitored and controlled, using new and innovative methods to call for reforms.

These new technologies have advanced the frontiers of advocacy and strengthened the capacity of individuals to make a difference. But governments have also moved into this virtual space to try to shut down these new avenues of activism. In many cases they are using new media technologies to support their policies of censorship and surveillance, often increasing the risks to human rights defenders.

HRF is currently working to support these defenders and promote policies that will ensure that the power of new media technologies is used to advance human rights principles, not to suppress them. By supporting this new generation of human rights defenders, we affirm their innovative approach and the message it sends about the power each one of us has to cause change...Sometimes, sitting at a keyboard can be just as powerful as waving a banner, or standing in front of a tank…

We're Working to Ensure That the Next President Is Firmly Committed to Human Rights and the Rule of Law

This is an exciting time to be coming into my new role as the CEO and Executive Director of Human Rights First. As we approach a moment of political transition, there is an opportunity to change many of the policies and practices that have undermined human rights in the United States and abroad. But we know that, no matter who wins the election in November, these changes will not be easy; they will involve difficult choices and decisions. HRF is poised to provide not just a compass but a detailed roadmap for the next administration, spelling out exactly what steps must be taken to restore U.S. leadership on human rights in the world.

This Fall, HRF is working with the candidates and their parties to ensure that the next administration is prepared to reestablish our reputation as a nation committed to human rights and the rule of law. These past two weeks HRF has been on the road in Denver and St. Paul, where we organized receptions celebrating the U.S. commitment to the rule of law and honoring our retired military partners who are speaking out against torture. By bringing together allies ranging from policymakers, military leaders, and opinion leaders, we are working to reframe the debate around national security to show that a rights-respecting approach based on the rule of law is the only effective way to respond to the various challenges that terrorism presents.

HRF is also working with both candidates to develop a plan to close Guantanamo. Although they have both recognized the need to close the facility, we also know that the devil is in the details. Our recently published blueprint lays out concrete recommendations for how to get there. Closing Guantanamo is a critical step in reaffirming the U.S. commitment to human rights and the rule of law.

Much of HRF’s work with the incoming administration will focus on reestablishing the United States as an international leader in human rights. From the Iraqi Refugee Crisis to the crisis in Darfur, from the everyday struggles of human rights defenders to the rising tide of hate crimes throughout the world, HRF is working in the next months not only to ensure that these issues are a priority to the next administration, but we are also proposing solutions and strategies to address them.

Since 1978, Human Rights First has been committed to protect and defend individuals through respect for human rights and the rule of law. In this 30th anniversary year, we are taking the opportunity to celebrate our past, present and future commitment to these principles. None of this would be possible without your support. Thank you for helping us fight to make a difference in the world.

Supreme Court Ruling on Guantanamo Detainees Strengthens Nation's Commitment to Rule of Law

Decision Defends Civil Liberties and Rule of Law

Last month the U.S. Supreme Court took an important step toward reestablishing America’s credibility as a nation committed to due process and the rule of law. In its Boumediene v. Bush decision of June 12, 2008, the Court upheld the long-standing principle of habeas corpus for detainees in Guantanamo. After more than six years, this decision gives Guantanamo detainees the ability to challenge their detention in federal court.

Habeas corpus – the right to challenge detention before a judge – is at the heart of the concept of the rule of law. It is not the jailor who should be in charge of judging a person or deciding upon his fate. Nor is it the executive system alone that has this power to deprive men of their liberty. They must be subject to meaningful federal judicial review.

Already, in the aftermath of the Boumediene decision, proposals are being made for new laws that would permit detention without criminal charges or trials and the creation of new national security courts.

These proposals run counter to the findings of a recent HRF report, In Pursuit of Justice, which concludes that “the justice system has capably handled [terrorism] cases, and continues to evolve to meet the challenge terrorism cases pose.” The Boumediene decision itself states that “questions [relating to protecting sources and intelligence-gathering] are within the expertise and competence of the District Court to address in the first instance.”

In the words of Harold Hongju Koh, Dean and Smith Professor of International Law at the Yale Law School and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, “[In Pursuit of Justice] proves that we need not reinvent the wheel: the federal criminal courts have been successfully adapted to handle the most important and challenging terrorism cases, and without sacrificing either national security or due process.”

In our view strong policies aimed a protecting national security can and should be consistent with strong policies protecting core civil liberties and human rights. These twin objectives go hand in hand.

After Guantanamo: What’s Next?

Human Rights First has long argued that the prolonged detention of prisoners at Guantanamo – and the military commissions created to try them – undermines effective counterterrorism policy and violates basic principles of justice and human rights.

As the consensus grows across the political spectrum that Guantanamo has been a failure and should be shut down, some have argued that the United States should replace the detention and military commission system there with a state-side version – domestic administrative detention without trial, and a separate court system created to try only terrorism cases. We believe this would be a profound mistake.

And it is unnecessary. As documented in a new study undertaken for Human Rights First by Richard Zabel and James Benjamin Jr., two former federal prosecutors now at the law firm of Akin Gump, the federal court system has proven itself capable of adapting to the challenges posed by complex terrorism cases, with a track record of convictions that puts the military commissions to shame. Our report In Pursuit of Justice is the product of a year-long examination of motion papers, docket sheets, judicial opinions, and press accounts of more than 100 terrorism prosecutions, as well as interviews with prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges with firsthand experience litigating these cases. The report analyzes in particular those features of the regular criminal justice system identified by proponents of special terrorism courts as obstacles that they argue necessitate a separate system, including pre-trial detention powers, rules for protecting classified evidence, the government's discovery obligations, the authentication and admissibility of evidence collected abroad, and other aspects of the federal system. Using numerous case-specific examples, the report establishes that existing laws not only cover a broad spectrum of terrorism-related crimes but also, in the vast majority of known cases, provide an effective basis for detaining and monitoring suspects. It explains how federal criminal courts balance defendants' rights to review relevant evidence with the need to protect sensitive national security information – a challenge that continues to face the military commissions. And it discusses how the rules of admissibility and authentication are applied in a common-sense manner to evidence collected abroad.

Turning to Rich Zabel and Jim Benjamin to work with HRF on this report is a hallmark of how we approach our work. Prosecutors and human rights advocates do not always see eye to eye on issues and indeed we will differ on some issues when it comes to prosecuting suspected terrorists. But if our policy makers and leaders are to make informed decisions about what works best and is in the best interest of the country, it is essential that we reach out to allies, sometimes in unlikely places – just as we have in our work with retired military leaders to end the use of torture in America’s name. The answers don’t always come from the right or the left, or the liberal or conservative point of view. They come from reaching across the aisle and across perceived biases and barriers to work together to preserve the values and principles upon which our country was founded.